Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

Philosophical Health Test


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Skans said:

The test is faulty and is engineered to incorrectly judge those who hold Conservative beliefs as having poor philosophical health. 

That's what I guessed, so I didn't even bother.  Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Skans said:

I took the test.  I read the results and the argumentative explanations.  The test is faulty and is engineered to incorrectly judge those who hold Conservative beliefs as having poor philosophical health.  Now, here is my basis and proof for saying this:

 

The test analyzed two of my answers pertaining to religion as follows:

 

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

The test makes false presumptions in claiming that my answers are inconsistent. 

1.  False Assumption.   I answered that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence.  So, the test assumes that believing is God is unreasonable because I disagreed with that statement.  Yet, there is evidence of the existence of God.  There are many personal accounts of people who claim to have died, having gone to another realm and have met with and conversed with God.  These personal accounts tend to have commonalities.  And, because they are personal accounts, they are in fact evidence of God's existence.  There are other forms of evidence as to God's existence, but I don't need to go there - at least this one form of evidence does exist.

 

2.  Why the Author's False Assumption negates the test.   It is true that I think Atheism is a faith.  Notice, one question deals with the existence of evidence.  The other question deals with proof.  Evidence and proof are two different terms, with two very different meanings.  There is no "proof" that God does not exist.  Had the questioner asked whether I believe there is evidence that God does not exist, I would have said "yes", there is such evidence.  The mere fact that God does not appear to many people in their daily lives could be labeled as such evidence that God does not exist.

 

There were many more problems based on the wording of the questions.  I could go through each and point out those problems.  But, this one particularly stood out to me, so I decided to use it as an example of why it is a poorly engineered test.  Proof and Evidence are not the same thing, yet the author of the test uses these terms interchangeably to attempt to trap the test taker and claim he is "philosophically inconsistent".

 

 

 

 

What was your score?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ROG62 said:

This is stupid...

 

People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead.

 

I would prefer to walk, don't have a cycle and trains are a pain in the ass....

What if someone is moving  from an apartment into a house?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Skans said:

I took the test.  I read the results and the argumentative explanations.  The test is faulty and is engineered to incorrectly judge those who hold Conservative beliefs as having poor philosophical health.  Now, here is my basis and proof for saying this:

 

The test analyzed two of my answers pertaining to religion as follows:

 

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

The test makes false presumptions in claiming that my answers are inconsistent. 

1.  False Assumption.   I answered that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence.  So, the test assumes that believing is God is unreasonable because I disagreed with that statement.  Yet, there is evidence of the existence of God.  There are many personal accounts of people who claim to have died, having gone to another realm and have met with and conversed with God.  These personal accounts tend to have commonalities.  And, because they are personal accounts, they are in fact evidence of God's existence.  There are other forms of evidence as to God's existence, but I don't need to go there - at least this one form of evidence does exist.

 

2.  Why the Author's False Assumption negates the test.   It is true that I think Atheism is a faith.  Notice, one question deals with the existence of evidence.  The other question deals with proof.  Evidence and proof are two different terms, with two very different meanings.  There is no "proof" that God does not exist.  Had the questioner asked whether I believe there is evidence that God does not exist, I would have said "yes", there is such evidence.  The mere fact that God does not appear to many people in their daily lives could be labeled as such evidence that God does not exist.

 

There were many more problems based on the wording of the questions.  I could go through each and point out those problems.  But, this one particularly stood out to me, so I decided to use it as an example of why it is a poorly engineered test.  Proof and Evidence are not the same thing, yet the author of the test uses these terms interchangeably to attempt to trap the test taker and claim he is "philosophically inconsistent".

 

 

 

 

I talked to Gawd this morning, and we both agree, you're a bloomimg IDIOT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this  garbage

 

"In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past."

 

 

leftists  believe in what they term as  POSITIVE  discrimination   and they  support it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

I got a 20

 

and I got every question correct

There is no correct or incorrect answer

The test is designed to detect if your answers Are contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Skans said:

The test is faulty and is engineered to incorrectly judge those who hold Conservative beliefs as having poor philosophical health. 

 

LOL... I knew you would blame the test. Just like you blame reality for being biased against you. 

 

57 minutes ago, Skans said:

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

The difference is that atheists don't believe God doesn't exist because there is evidence He doesn't exist, they believe He doesn't exist because there is NO evidence that He DOES exist. Christians have FAITH in God without evidence of His existence... because evidence isn't necessary.

 

You're using the argument from ignorance fallacy to try to explain why the test is wrong... it doesn't work.

 

https://philosophy-question.com/library/lecture/read/273871-what-is-the-argument-from-ignorance-fallacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, slideman said:

There is no correct or incorrect answer

The test is designed to detect if your answers Are contradictory.

Several of the "tests" questions are contradictory themselves.

 

I got a 7 too BTW.

 

Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skans said:

There are many personal accounts of people who claim to have died, having gone to another realm and have met with and conversed with God.  These personal accounts tend to have commonalities.  And, because they are personal accounts, they are in fact evidence of God's existence.  There are other forms of evidence as to God's existence, but I don't need to go there - at least this one form of evidence does exist.

 

Ridiculous. 

 

There is absolutely no way for anyone to truly know if whatever they're seeing or feeling or hearing is God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...